Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Microsoft Security The Internet Technology

Microsoft Says Google Chrome Frame Makes IE Less Secure 459

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the less-secure-than-what-exactly dept.
Mark writes "The release of Google Chrome Frame, a new open source plugin that injects Chrome's renderer and JavaScript engine into Microsoft's browser, earlier this week had many web developers happily dancing long through the night. Finally, someone had found a way to get Internet Explorer users up to speed on the Web. Microsoft, on the other hand, is warning IE users that it does not recommend installing the plugin. What does the company have against the plugin? It makes Internet Explorer less secure. 'With Internet Explorer 8, we made significant advancements and updates to make the browser safer for our customers,' a Microsoft spokesperson told Ars. 'Given the security issues with plugins in general and Google Chrome in particular, Google Chrome Frame running as a plugin has doubled the attack area for malware and malicious scripts. This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Says Google Chrome Frame Makes IE Less Secure

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:00AM (#29527551)
    stones/glasshouses
    • Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ta bu shi da yu (687699) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:03AM (#29527607) Homepage

      I know. Ho hum. Someone tell Microsoft to wake me up when they get around to actually making a decent browser. How many years has it been? 13 years?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Perhaps you don't remember, but IE 5 was LIGHTYEARS ahead of Netscape. There's a reason EVERYBODY dumped Netscape, and it wasn't just "it came with Windows", because at first, it didn't...

        Also, IE7 and 8 (on Vista and Windows 7) has a bunch of really impressive security features, albeit they're still behind in standards. And "accelerators" are extremely useful.

        That said, I still use Firefox (Somebody PLEASE make AdBlock Plus for Chrome and IE please! )
        • Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Chabil Ha' (875116) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:30AM (#29527873)

          Perhaps you don't remember, but IE 5 was LIGHTYEARS ahead of Netscape.

          Great, that happened *ten* years ago [wikipedia.org]. What has happened since? They've been chasing the Fox for past *five* years.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Also, IE7 and 8 (on Vista and Windows 7) has a bunch of really impressive security features...

          And even more impressive bloat, *especially* with regards to screen real estate, even with all the bars disabled. It's as if IE is parodying itself. [j-walkblog.com] Ever try using IE8 on a netbook? It doesn't work, you have to enter kiosk mode for it to be remotely useful. There's no thought to form or function, they just barfed menus all over the place and called it "progress".

        • Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Informative)

          by Kagetsuki (1620613) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @10:02AM (#29528227)
          IE 5 was great, but MS making IE5 great and taking the market lead seems to have given them the idea that they could implement their own features all on their own and make everyone conform to their standards, which they are still doing now. The thing is the way Internet explorer implemented a lot of features gave a lot of things that just couldn't be easily done or done at all until HTML5 was actually adopted. The problem there is that HTML 5 took forever. Evolution of the web by its own standards committee has been gruelingly slow and the massive amount of garbage that has come out in-between and the amount of junk included in HTML 5 itself is astounding. Even if you could say some new features submitted are great there is just so much overlapping of features it's hard to tell what is the best way to do anything now. Do you write a site with canvas and hope people using IE will install chrome frame? Do you write two versions of the same site, one using "standard" HTML 5/XML Namespaces/SVG/Canvas and one using whatever Microsoft developed 5 years ago to achieve the same thing but in the Microsoft way? Speaking of SVG, the Adobe SVG plugin for IE can't read modern SVG files and the google SVG to flash translator breaks if you use any other new web technology with it (xlink for example). And don't even get me started on how terrible Flash is, it's just depressing. Java web launch? Has anybody even heard of it? How many general PC users even have the Java plug-in properly installed (I'm betting 3 year old can count that high)? The internet sucks and it sucks in two different directions: the "anything goes and we'll do whatever we want Microsoft direction" and the "we'll do everything you want but we'll fight about how to do it for 5 years, then never actually call the standard finalized so we can just arbitrarily change it and if any browser developers complain we'll just tell them they shouldn't have implemented it if it wasn't finalized" W3C/Gecko/Webkit/Opera direction.

          Maybe we should just start over completely. Make a new standard that doesn't rely on the rigid and inflexible concept of tags and use a scripting language and have a standard API. Leave HTML for TEXT formatting, and return it back to a document formatting language, leaving dynamic content to a totally separate system....
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Deathlizard (115856)

          Somebody PLEASE make AdBlock Plus for Chrome and IE please!

          IE8 has it built in with Inprivate filtering. You can also import lists to filter URL's similar to AdBlockPlus. Although it's not as conveniently automatic or as seamless, it works pretty well.

          There's a good amount of info in this thread at DSLReports.
          http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22124619-IE8-InPrivate-filter-from-adblock-plus-list [dslreports.com]

      • Re:kettle/black (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mcgrew (92797) * on Thursday September 24, 2009 @10:48AM (#29528797) Homepage Journal

        And where are these supposed vulnerabilities, anyway? If Microsoft wanted IE to be secure they'd abandon hActive-X and drop j-script in favor of javascript.

        I don't know why anyone but the ignorant would run IE. It (and all of Microsoft's offerings) have always been less secure than just about everyone else's.

        • by ae1294 (1547521)

          And where are these supposed vulnerabilities, anyway? If Microsoft wanted IE to be secure they'd abandon hActive-X and drop j-script in favor of javascript.
          I don't know why anyone but the ignorant would run IE. It (and all of Microsoft's offerings) have always been less secure than just about everyone else's.

          I see no trolling here... Slashdot is going to die if the corporation that owns it doesn't start dealing with the horrible mod problem.

          Active-X is and always has been a huge problem and Microsoft products in general have shown themselves to be less secure. Why that might be is open to debate but anyone who ever works on a "normal" persons computer should have noticed that people who us IE always have mind blowing amounts of spyware and those that have been forced to use some other browser (by me) never have

    • by Vindicator9000 (672761) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:27AM (#29527835)
      But really, no one should throw stones, right? As a kid, I was always taught that it's not nice to throw stones at people. Unless of course, you were trapped in a glass house and needed to get out. If you have a pile of stones next to you, go ahead and throw them. Then you won't be trapped anymore! So really, people in glass houses are the only ones who should throw stones. Right?
    • by Hatta (162192) * on Thursday September 24, 2009 @10:05AM (#29528265) Journal

      Making IE less secure is like making water more wet.

    • by Deathlizard (115856) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @10:12AM (#29528335) Homepage Journal

      By running this plugin, you would be exposing yourself to not only Possible IE exploits, but possible Chrome Exploits as well. It would be much safer to run the Chrome browser standalone since it reduces the attack surface. It would probably be faster standalone too.

      • by RareButSeriousSideEf (968810) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @10:40AM (#29528717) Homepage Journal

        +1.

        I actually got one of my systems pwned (for the first time in > 10 years) via Chrome, in incognito mode no less. Not saying that any other browser would have stopped it, least of all IE; it was a Java -- not javascript -- vulnerability... http://blog.cr0.org/2009/05/write-once-own-everyone.html [cr0.org]. This vulnerability allowed an applet to escape both Chrome's and Java's sandboxing. The point is just that no browser is by itself a silver bullet of invulnerability, especially when plugins and external runtimes are involved.

        Now I run Chrome standalone with the -disable-java command line switch to cut the attack surface down a bit. It's not as versatile as NoScript in FF, but you can run Chrome instances with javascript, plugins, etc. disabled on an individual basis. A list is at http://www.chromeplugins.org/tips-tricks/chrome-command-line-switches/ [chromeplugins.org].

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mcrbids (148650)

          I actually got one of my systems pwned (for the first time in > 10 years) via Chrome, in incognito mode no less. Not saying that any other browser would have stopped it, least of all IE; it was a Java -- not javascript -- vulnerability... http://blog.cr0.org/2009/05/write-once-own-everyone.html [cr0.org] [cr0.org]. This vulnerability allowed an applet to escape both Chrome's and Java's sandboxing.

          ... and the fact that this happened while you were using Chrome's "incognito mode" is a good indication of the types of sites that you were visiting when this happened.

          Look - wearing a bullet-proof vest does offer a degree of protection greater than normal clothing, but that doesn't mean that you should be walking around the red-light district of Oakland, CA after dark. You can still get knifed, kidnapped, or shot in the head. It also won't protect you from the impact of hitting the ground after jumping out

    • Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Insightful)

      by noundi (1044080) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @10:13AM (#29528357)

      Microsoft Says Google Chrome Frame Makes IE Less Secure

      Of course they do! Disregard the fact that they provide no evidence at all, and that they use this:

      Google Chrome Frame running as a plugin has doubled the attack area for malware and malicious scripts.

      as an argument to prove their point (???), but really, this is Googles way of taking over the MS userbase as explained here [slashdot.org], and MS knows it. If Google wave becomes a hit, people will remember this move as the first important joust won by Google. IE with its crippled javascript hopes to prevent the popularity of Google wave by using scorched earth policy. [wikipedia.org]

      • Re:kettle/black (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @10:52AM (#29528873) Journal
        They make a valid point. IE has holes. Chrome has holes. IE with a Chrome plugin can be exploited by both vectors. There should be no debate over the fact that IE+Chrome is less secure than IE without Chrome. That is distracting from the real question, however, which is whether IE without Chrome is less secure than Chrome without IE.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jhfry (829244)

          Actually... no.

          1 - IE's renderer has holes.
          2 - Chrome's renderer has (I believe) fewer holes (because it is not as tied to the OS).
          3 - Only 1 renderer will be used to render a malicious page.
          If 2 and 3 are true, then it follows that when Chrome's renderer is used, the browser is actually more secure.

          Of course this is highly dependent upon the level of communication between the browser and the renderer. I suspect that it is very minimal ( button clicks, bookmarks, etc.) as tight integration would be unneces

  • Friends? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jeoh (1393645) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:00AM (#29527559)

    Friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer anyway.

    • Re:Friends? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Mikkeles (698461) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:02AM (#29527597)

      'This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take.'

      They have friends, much less family?

      • Re:Friends? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@noSPam.gmail.com> on Thursday September 24, 2009 @10:02AM (#29528239) Homepage Journal

        I read a fantastic interview with one of the lead IE developers as they were prepping the launch of IE 7. He said his daughter came home from school one day and asked him if he was responsible for breaking the web.

        In the interview, he seemed to imply the current IE team feels guilty and responsible for previous versions being so poor in standards compliance, and that the new developers were pushing to make IE more complaint in the future.

        Technically, they have succeeded. IE 7 and 8 are more complaint. They still however are not very compliant on the whole.

        So yes, they have families. And even their beloved daughters call them out for IE's problems.

        • Re:Friends? (Score:5, Funny)

          by benwiggy (1262536) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @10:42AM (#29528739)

          ...the new developers were pushing to make IE more complaint in the future.

          Technically, they have succeeded. IE 7 and 8 are more complaint.

          Feel the delicious irony from an incorrect vowel transposition!

        • Re:Friends? (Score:4, Informative)

          by vtcodger (957785) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @10:54AM (#29528903)

          There are standards for HTML? Who knew?

          FWIW, as of this morning, the W3C Validator [http://validator.w3.org] reports

          www.google.com ------------ 39 Errors, 2 warning(s)
          www.microsoft.com -------- 300 Errors, 31 warning(s)
          www.apple.com -------------- 6 Errors, 1 warning(s)
          www.bing.com -------------- 12 Errors
          http://validator.w3.org/ [w3.org] ------ Sorry! This document can not be checked
          www.slashdot.org ---------- 64 Errors, 2 warning(s)

          And don't those web page designers who are "dancing for joy" deserve a bit of credit for this shambles? I'd like to believe that they won't immediately start using features that work in chrome, but not IE because "all the user has to do is download a plugin." But if past experience is any guide, that is exactly what many of them will do.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by ajs (35943)

            For www.google.com the validator says:

            Using experimental feature: HTML5 Conformance Checker.

            I think it's kind of unfair to cite statistics without being clear about the limitations of the tools used.

      • Re:Friends? (Score:5, Funny)

        by pacinpm (631330) <pacinpmNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday September 24, 2009 @10:26AM (#29528533)

        I find the lack of mention of children and terrorists disturbing.

  • Well yes (Score:5, Funny)

    by Canazza (1428553) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:01AM (#29527571)

    Ofcourse it makes it less secure, it lets you run Javascript faster, so that all those drive-by malware installers can execute faster!

  • by Chrisq (894406) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:01AM (#29527573)
    What do you expect; "This is great now our customers can access standards-compliant sites and have a faster, smoother web experience"?
  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:02AM (#29527585) Journal

    Dear Microsoft:

    Citation please. Evidence. Facts. Or retract.

    'k thanks,

    Google

    • by ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:18AM (#29527739)

      Well, technically, they may be right. It does lead to more attack surface, and many plugins have permissions the browser doesn't allow itself. And Microsoft product security has increased, to the point where I'm fairly confident that the security risks of their Javascript interpreter are comparable with other major browsers. And unless Google *forces* updates to the plugin, security patches will never be applied; few people run Windows Update, but even fewer update non-MS products.

      Of course, those arguments mostly argue for rejecting the *plugin*. *Replacing* IE8 with Chrome (or your browser of choice) means you have only one program's attack surface to worry about again. I'm guessing this is the unspoken part of MS's argument.

    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      But it is about "our friends and families"! How could you be so desinvolt in a matter involving our FRIENDS and FAMILIES !
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:30AM (#29527869)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by horatio (127595)
      Wait, isn't it Microsoft that silently installs a plugin into Firefox during a Windows update session, and disables the "uninstall" functionality? Guy has some nerve to stand around and wag his finger at Google.
    • by beelsebob (529313) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:47AM (#29528049)

      Inciteful as the statement is, it's true... There's no way it can be false. A browser containing IE's engine *and* WebKit has all the security holes from both, and all the security holes gained in pushing one into the other.

      So yes, microsoft is right, but rather missing the point... If you're using a chrome frame, you're probably not using IE frames, which means that you're as secure as WebKit's security flaws.

      Why you'd do that rather than just using chrome I have no idea though.

      • by vitaflo (20507) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @11:12AM (#29529105) Homepage

        Inciteful as the statement is, it's true... There's no way it can be false. A browser containing IE's engine *and* WebKit has all the security holes from both, and all the security holes gained in pushing one into the other.

        It's also true for any plug in you use in IE. I'm curious if MS would say the same about Flash, Java, etc? Because they all introduce their own security problems in IE in a similar way as Chrome Frame. The fact that MS is singling out Chrome Frame says more about how MS feels about Google than it does about the security of their browser.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jellomizer (103300)

      Dear Microsoft,

      ActiveX.

      I told you back in the 90's it was a bad idea. So did the rest of us. But did you listen... No.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Rockoon (1252108)
        Dear jellomizer,

        This is essentially the same thing as an ActiveX component, with the exception that it doesn't use the COM+OLE framework to "plug in." This exception isn't very meaningful. The fact is that in both cases you are downloading a binary which then gets conditionally executed based on commands given in an HTML document.

        My beef with google here is that it looks like they are poised to lock in their own lack of standards compliance on us all (no rendering engine is 100% standards compliant, the
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pyrbrand (939860)
      Besides the obvious (you have all the surface area of Chrome and IE together in the browser), there are a lot of questions I have about whether and how it respects IE's security settings, privacy settings, site filtering settings, no-script settings, script debugger settings and on and on. People can joke about how early versions of IE had huge security issues, but all the mitigations and fine grained control over what a page can and cannot do, as well as group policies put in place for sys-admins at corpo
  • I agree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kimvette (919543) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:02AM (#29527599) Homepage Journal

    This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take.""

    . . . which is why one should run Firefox, konqueror, Mozilla, or Opera on Linux, Solaris, or BSD instead.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:04AM (#29527613)
    I'm not Microsoft's friend or family.
  • Of course (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PhasmatisApparatus (1086395) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:04AM (#29527615)
    Of course it doubles the attack rate of malicious scripts... It makes Javascript run twice as fast.

    In other news, Microsoft has said that Moores Law is a security risk, because viruses can install themselves twice as fast every 18 months.
  • Thanks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:06AM (#29527621)

    You just made one of the most important arguments against Silverlight official.

  • Textbook FUD (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lemming Mark (849014) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:09AM (#29527639) Homepage

    "Given the security issues with plugins in general and Google Chrome in particular"

    O RLY?

    I'm happy to believe that IE8 actually has a good security model. I'm happy to believe that Chrome is not without flaws. But, really, Google have gone through fairly considerable pain and implemented quite strict sandboxing techniques for Chrome, to contain any problems in the renderer. It's pretty solid. Maybe it's better than IE8, maybe not. But just hand waving and going "Oh yes, *especially* Chrome" as if it's common knowledge that it's insecure is simply FUD.

    The point about increasing the attack surface area seems more valid, perhaps, though it really depends on how this plugin works. If there are really twice as many places available at once then yes, that is a worry. If you'd have to get through Chrome's security and then through IE8's security, that actually sounds quite good. Possibly the biggest security worry I see is in encouraging users to think that installing a large, scary plugin that basically replaces the guts of their browser is a normal occurrence that will make their internet experience better.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by selven (1556643)
      You're not just adding the security of Chrome and IE, you're adding their insecurity as well.
      • I realise that's the risk they're referring to. But whether it works like that really depends on how it's architected.

        If Chrome is using IE facilities to interact with the outside world, then that's exposing you to bugs in those IE facilities. If Chrome was using its own HTTP implementation, etc and basically just acting as an independent browser that happens to be embedded in an IE window then Chrome is going to be the one exposing bugs to the outside world.

        I assume that it is somehow using IE facilities

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by amoeba1911 (978485)

        You can't add security, you can only add insecurity. A system is as secure as the weakest point of entry.

        That having been said, all plug-ins reduce security, including Flash and Silverlight, this is no different.

    • by Svartalf (2997)

      Heh... Since the general user population on Windows will install damned near any sort of crap on their box because it's "nifty", "cool", etc. along with at least prior versions of IE gleefully doing it for them whether they wanted it or not- why would it be any different now?

    • Re:Textbook FUD (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Just Some Guy (3352) <kirk+slashdot@strauser.com> on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:28AM (#29527849) Homepage Journal

      I'm happy to believe that IE8 actually has a good security model.

      And I thought that included sandboxing plugins? How can any plugin be a serious security threat with MS went through such pains to make IE bulletproof?

  • Double Standards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:12AM (#29527663)

    So... forcing the .NET plug-in on Firefox users was OK, but a voluntary add-on from Google is a security risk? Good to know.

  • Ingrates! (Score:4, Funny)

    by dangitman (862676) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:13AM (#29527671)

    a new open source plugin that injects Chrome's renderer and JavaScript engine into Microsoft's browser, earlier this week had many web developers happily dancing long through the night.

    Dancing Developers?? Get back to developing webs, like you're supposed to be doing! Didn't anybody tell you that you are no good at dancing?

  • Lets revisit this in a year's time. It will be interesting to see how many vulnerabilities are introduced by this compared to how many vulnerabilities in IE do not occur when browsing in a Chrome Frame. My guess is that it will be about even.
  • Ralph (Score:2, Funny)

    As Ralph Wiggum would say:

    That's unpossible!

  • By that logic... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MoOsEb0y (2177) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:23AM (#29527795)
    ... we should ban flash, acrobat reader, quicktime, and dozens of other plugins that all have regularly reported vulnerabilities.
    • by Tony Hoyle (11698)

      Actually for some of those I think you'd get a loud cheer if they were banned..

      This is just Microsoft saying that the sandboxing in IE8 doesn't work and a browser plugin can compromise the system. That's how I read it, anyway.

  • Microsoft is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take.
  • Families (Score:5, Funny)

    by Thanshin (1188877) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:26AM (#29527831)

    This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take.

    Especially the children. Think of the children!

    He should have used "mortal danger" instead of simply "risk". Also, change "would recommend" for "let". And add some exclamations, for god's sake, this is serious.

    Thus, the closing sentence should be:
    "This is not a mortal danger we let our children take!"

    However, once you've decided to push factless crap with fear mongering, at least do it with style.

    I recommend:
    "If you allow your children to install the google demon, your entire family will suffer an eternity of pain, in HELL!"

  • by lawnsprinkler (1012271) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:28AM (#29527843)
    "This is not a risk we would recommend our friends and families take." The Microsoft representative further stated that "Allowing your children to use the Google Chrome Frame plugin is tantamount to child abuse. In fact, we're not so sure that anyone installing this is truly capable of feeling love. What kind of heartless monster would willingly install this on their loved ones' browser?"
  • What about Flash? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    ".... has doubled the attack area for malware and malicious scripts."

    Can't the same thing be said about the Flash Player Plugin?

  • Oh please (Score:2, Insightful)

    by gibbo2 (58897)
    Because people still using IE6 are really worried about their browser security...
  • Thanks Microsoft... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:30AM (#29527871) Homepage Journal

    I heard about this but I wasn't going to install it yet. I don't use a lot of I.E. stuff, but what I do is Javascript intensive, so now that I know that your don't like it at Microsoft I have now installed it. Thanks for the heads up... since you don't like it there must be a reason to give it a look.

  • It's simply not possible for IE to be less secure, even if they stuck giant yellow landing stripes with a big blinking arrow visible from space with the label "ATTACK ME" on it.

  • Well, the first question that comes to my mind is this:

    Why even bother using IE in the first place? The tab structure of Chrome is way better in my opinion. I'm not sure if IE8 supports tab dragging, but in Chrome, I love the ability to drag individual tabs out of the main window so that the tab becomes its own independent window. Often I'll have some code reference up on my main monitor, and I'll drag a hello world (or some test equivalent) page as a tab out of the main application. In IE, you'd have to r
  • by dgun (1056422) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:37AM (#29527929) Homepage
    ..is scared.

    So Microsoft, how does it feel? How does it feel to have a big bad company with a near monopoly in one market (Google in search) threaten your stake in a different market (browsers)?
    • Mistaken market. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by neo (4625) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @11:56AM (#29529643)

      Google is not in the business of providing searches. Google is in the business of selling ads. It just happens that having the best search gives you more eyeballs on your ads. They leverage that advantage to gain share in other markets. It does sound like another company I've heard about.

      But you're on target here, this is obviously not comfortable for Microsoft. Five years ago they wouldn't have even bothered to issue a response. This is the kind of press release that is pure fear.

      Someone has made a plug-in for your browser that makes it 8X faster.

      • It shows incompetence of your developers that someone else had apparently patched your buggy/slow software.
      • Eventually people learn that it's actually another browser. Most people don't even know what a browser is.
      • Why use something in emulation when you can run the real thing? People will switch.

      It's something I said a long long long time ago. What can kill Microsoft? Something free.

  • by Cro Magnon (467622) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @09:37AM (#29527937) Homepage Journal

    But I doubt that even they could make IE less secure than it already is.

  • Hey! (Score:2, Funny)

    by hesaigo999ca (786966)

    >Microsoft Says Google Chrome Frame Makes IE Less Secure
    Everyone knows Microsoft Is What Makes IE Less Secure!

    ~ there...fixed that for you.

  • Friends and family (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Thursday September 24, 2009 @10:09AM (#29528309)

    Well of course Microsoft "doesn't recommend" their friends and family use the Chrome plugin. If they did, next thing you know their friends and family are down at the T-Mobile shop eying Android phones, or over at the Apple Store snapping up an iPhone. As long as those friends and family are only exposed to Microsoft products, they'll never realize that the grass, indeed, really is greener on the other side of that fence - because those other guys actually feed and water their lawn!

There is no distinction between any AI program and some existent game.

Working...